tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN September 26, 2012 5:00pm-8:00pm EDT
ultimately, there has to be something at the table. a tribe with an initiative of some sort did not prepare the ground for it and it backfired. part of the reconciliation transition. i think he is the best among the people and i think he has some capabilities. he learned from his mistakes and hopefully he will do better. but definitely, i think, as far as the ability, he needs a lot of help. that is all i can say. >> with regards to the
outreach, these efforts by the u.s. where on going wild gaddafi was in power. we were sending students, we were trying it to reach out to the libyan popular essence as the revolution this has only in creased. i was there and there is enormous outreach from western populousthe libyan across the spectrum and there was a a receptiveness to that. that would have not have prevented the attack because these radical malicious or these economists islands that were opposed to interaction with the west. we saw them attacking these western icons. they were railing against u.s. presence in the country and you're talking about using libya
as a base to fly drones. there were these wellsprings of anti-americanism. the best outreach was through a fellow islamists who had made the journey toward a more pragmatic political stance and some of these people, the muslim brotherhood, they could talk in the same vocabulary and they said you are entitled to have these hard-line views on sharia but you cannot do it through force. this our reach was ongoing as well. my point was i think some humble less about what the u.s. can accomplish in this country and respect for the libyan's ability to regulate their own society and police themselves. >> i would echo that. . i think outreach, that kind of
thing is bipartisan. it has been extremely evidence in the urban area. there are some exceptions. think of the committee that offers training to brigade leaders. i attended one where they got a uae member to come over. they had an interesting discussion. games where you got to draw using the least amount of lines. and day discussion our constitution and elections and everything -- and a discussion on the constitution and elections and everything. there is no training being offered to militia groups.
one reason may be because governments cannot do that. but they have to go through the army, which has their own agenda and their own reasons for not reaching out to d.c. youth -- to these youth. i have no ready answer as to how to get around that but it is a problem. it is not simply there is a lot of help to the libyans. there is an amazing amount of initiative. again, i have to say it is mostly tripoli and been gauzy -- benghazi but i'm talking about people training themselves. they observe the elections in egypt. working with the germans and various other areas to develop
this awareness of what is going on. again, though, that this not hitting the militias who are largely unemployed young people who need something to do with their lives. they need a certain amount of training. the south has been neglected in that. part of it is a security thing. is it -- it is in a state of frozen conflict. i do not think any ngo would have the security to sustain a presence there. it is a state of frozen conflict. >> this what you're talking about was imported from an nog from the united states.
-- ngo from the united states. >> a more general point, i think if you look at public opinion polls, what you see is a discrepancy between the attitude people have toward the united states and the attitude against it as policy. there is no indication that outreach really buys an understanding or an acceptance of u.s. policy. they seemed to travel in different directions. they show these a totally different attitudes on the
cultural level on the political level. let's get some more questions. 1, 2, and 3 back there. >> michael from the department of energy. i am curious as to your perspective about how likely it is the tensions you describe are likely to affect oil production in the near term, whether it is through outright destruction -- destruction or deterring foreign investment. thank you. >> the gentleman with the blue shirt. sorry about that. i did not see the person in the back. >> my question is more directed to mr. frederic.
seeing similar dynamics in the yemen with regard to competing militias, the lack of a central government control, what type of lessons are we learning from these states and also, with these type of dynamics, how can the u.s. be supportive in their transitions? >> let's take a third one. the person in the back than i could not see that i interrupted. >> my name is robert. we have seen a number of american companies who are chomping at the bit to look at the opportunities and libya. all of the sector's need to be brought up to date. given the fact several of you have been there recently, from the perspective we have had in the north, it seems security is not that big of a consideration
but we want to get your perspective as a westerner. have you felt any difficulties? any threats? would it be advisable for american companies to wait or is it a good opportunity to start looking? >> ok. since you were the last one, i will start with you. >> i will deal with the commercial question. i was there for 13 months. i did not have a security detail. i have a fairly low profile. i am just me and i have good relationships with officials and so forth so of something goes wrong, there are three or four people liking call. i do not want to give you a recommendation but i think it is
totally possible. it is certainly not at the level of iraq or afghanistan in terms of threats to western companies. there are some sensitivities you have to observe like the -- they decreed banning it. it does not mean it is law and it is that kind of ambiguous thing. for the moment, you have to go with libyan security. what else can i say? i think that for companies investing in libya now, relationships are a big priority. the startup costs are significant. the restrictions, the legal environment is inherited with
gaddafi so you can only own some much amount of stock and that kind of thing. that will change but the government has bigger fish to fry now. i do not expect much change in the next year-18 months. i expect turnover in the ministry and places like that. and now is probably the time to start creating relationships that to sustain you in the long term. >> with regard to the question on oil, this is a real concern in the east and what we saw prior to the july 7 election was a pro-i taney armed group shot down the facility. certainly this issue of oil as a leverage by groups in the east could emerge. i am not a specialist on oil but it is definitely a concern with these people i spoke with.
there is another dimension with the conflict down in the south. the way it is a party to the conflict, they are there, but the tribal belt extends all the way into that area. there is a lot of oil fields there. by one estimate i saw, 11% of libya's oil, they work as guards, and they have threatened to to shut down production if the government did not help them and intervene. it demonstrates these conflicts, whether we're talking about the eastern issue, they affect libya because of this oil issue. the issue of yemen, i'm struggling with parallels. on the surface perhaps there are some but the fundamental issue is you have a sitting
government that has squandered its legitimacy and the institutions are the problem with governance whereas in libya you are starting from scratch. there are no institutions. tribes are a slippery slope. i do not think we have time to get into distinctions between yemeni in the indian society but i do not think there is as stark in libya as they are in yemen. it has not been formalized to the degree it is in yemen. the same thing with the societal divisions. you do not have in libya the people in the north. you do not have the eastern issue i mentioned, it has not evolved into a full-fledged effort like you see in yemen. and al qaeda has not achieved a similar foothold we have seen in yemen.
there are murmurs of al qaeda in libya and there has been shattered and interest, there are groups in the east that appear to be affiliated but the actual operations are still nascent. you do not have an entire region that has fallen to a al qaeda like you do in yemen. >> i think the fact is the only institution that was working was the oil sector. and i think it continues to function that way. there is some problem with having a ministry of oil and the national oil company, which is the institution that runs that business. there is some conflicts and a
little bit tough fight over control. i was having dinner the day that it was taken over by the guys from the east. the phone call came and head of this group threatened and i said to him, tell him there is a red line. he impressed me because i that level he became very forceful and he said these are sensitive institutions and you will never be allowed to threaten these institutions. if i have to call on that power, i will. he made the statement and we have not seen a repetition of that level. i think when it comes to oil, if it is threatened, the libyans
will protect the institution. >> what about the situation for american companies? >> there is an issue of criminal elements, the kidnapping and ransom and all of this kind of stuff that goes to libyans. it depends on how the value -- [laughter] i think you should drive another car. i would suggest that people have to wait a few more weeks until things settle down and even the country, there is a similar warning for troubling to libya. some of the ngos are going back next week.
i am going on saturday. my deputy, she is an american lawyer, and we will ease her into tripoli in the next few weeks, hopefully. we just have to be careful. but overall, in the major city there is no problem. but if you travel outside of tripoli, especially if you travel to the south, it is better not to travel by car. there are some security things people have to keep in mind but other -- overall people are anxious. one of the biggest things that made the vivian's angry is the incident that took place that it will drive companies and business away and they had been working very hard to be with the rest of the world.
they felt that would be good. >> let's have another round of questions. i think you had your hand up. we have one here. >> the events over the weekend after the death of the embassador, where you have these demonstrations against the militias, one of the results was that some of the leaders said all the weapons had been stolen by demonstrators. these seem to get recycled and out of control again. with the ambassador gone and the cia team out, one of their things was looking for these patents and so on. how you assess the impact of
that situation as reducing the ability of the government to control the problems you're talking about? >> i have a question for fred, because you mentioned it in your report, you talked about efforts to work with programs for those who have in the revolution and you mentioned this council. it sounded like it was a promising start as a channel for people to engage their efforts a and to show those who had not been militants very long another way to deal with reconciliation. do you see this as being lost in the shuffle as we have new ministers being brought in? it seems there has been some
talk of that but it had been a promising channel and a sense to get toward a normalization into the international community. >> let's go over here. i had told him. >> thank you. my question is related to the first two about concern of weapons and weapons proliferation. i want to return to a similar theme the panel has brought up about the distance between the periphery or the national government. if a concern such as weapons being taken might be one avenue to be a common cause that might allow for connections between the top and bottom are center?
>> ok. >> let me tackle the issue of the affairs commission. much of my information stems from my interviews with the people in july. i agree it was a promising program. it was hobbled by lack of buy in from other ministries. it was seen as a unilateral program by the prime minister's office and you had resistance from the ministry of labor and interior, the ministry of defence. to my knowledge, they made a lot of progress with establishing a data base of these revolutionaries. peter and i both saw the actual registration forms and they were very thorough about gathering information about these young revolutionaries to include their hometown.
so you had a number of -- there was a huge wave of people that signed up and they and vetted people and from that number there were some who were selected. they were doing their homework because there was an not -- a lot of opportunists, people who did not fight in the revolution, the problem was a lack of funding, i think. and i think a lack of a buy in from certain militias. and i think especially in misrata, which is how this go it alone approach and has been well organized and in distrustful of the center. they do not want to surrender, they do not want to give a list of all of their young men who fought in the worst with all of this personal data because that smacks of a gaddafi-year program to control the periphery. it is a classic centralization.
and then the issue of manpower. i spoke to one brigade commander in the tripoli who was on the margins. he was involved with guarding the border and he was making a lot of money from this and he had his own personal empire and he says it is an academic exercise. he used those terms. if i am building a fiefdom, to suddenly volunteered to surrender this, so the wac was aware of this and they said we're going to go to these young man. you tell these young men, your future is not with your militia commander. it is with the state. yes, you fought to the revolution but that is over. the need to join the legitimate army and police. here is a scholarship to study abroad. that was the theory behind it.
and i agree with it. i think it was a great program. he said we are going straight to the young men. we are circumventing the militia commanders, circumventing the council's because they were not buying into it. i do not know if real life has been briefed in to that program. and into the funding and the legitimacy problem. >> i agree with pretty much everything fred said. it was drowned in applications from the beginning. 250,000 and they were saying if we have this many people fighting for us, this would have been over in weeks. but on the positive side, how great that unemployed kids are submitting these forms in the
hope of getting jobs and employment. that is a good thing. i think that wac had this big headline, 8 billion in funding. it never got that. it was an exercise to build the data base from which the and -- the defense, people would be funneled into employment and it never, it has not achieved that. they have done their own thing, we talked about the problems of that. and the labor stuff has not got started because no product has got started. again, he said an academic exercise. i don't think it should be written off. i think it is continuing.
and there is also, i would describe the main militia coalition view of the wac as a cynical cooperation. the deputy has an office in that building. i should have mentioned it in the question about soft power. it should not be written off. >> very quickly about the wac, there is some sensitivity about monsters., two big i am bringing the others but mainly to bring these two to the table so you can do with them because the future of libya will
lay in the hands of these two if they become troublemakers. i think some of them looked at it seriously and they looked at some of the people and they looked at the personality and they said this is the muslim brotherhood. they want to control us and we do not want to deal with them. they looked at it from a personnel and from sectarian or ideological prism and decided that will not work for us. we're not going to cooperate. that is what the problem is. >> he was throwing his weight around. there were definitely personality issues.
>> as far as the weapons, they did go inside into these camps. i was talking to a few people yesterday and they said some of the weapons were taken out. but they and up in the markets being sold. they did a good job to put them in a more secure place. but i think the question will be, how can the government devalued weapons? you have to sink, find a way whoever has the weapons, they will become moot -- useless. people will start getting rid of them. that they can use them to impose or negotiate or somehow
black tell them -- blackmail them, they have value. >> on the weapons, might understanding, -- my understanding of what has happened on the 17th of february, there is now a direct line of authority through the national army so there is a command structure. there has been no attempt to look at the weapons. with the groups that have abandoned their positions, from what i understand, i do not have any smoking gun or intelligence breakthrough, but my understanding is they have vacated their bases and their
positions and may have scattered and gone underground. your question was, has this help, or something like that, hasn't helped them gain control this situation? yes, i think that is a concern i have heard echoed. whereas you had open groups with whom you could have a conversation, you push them underground. >> i will take one more round if there are more questions. yes, the gentleman right here. >> david from the middle east institute. my question is who provides the security at the hospital?
>> there is another one. >> my question is, what are the chances that when the country becomes more stabilized, the united states or the u.n. will deploy troops to help train the militias? and will this become like where iraq had a standing army we could help train in a short amount of time, where will we have to start over? >> we have one more here and that will be the last question. >> my question piggyback on that last one. peter, you had mentioned a systemic endemic problem and
that the policy needs to move toward a grass-roots approach and something that addresses the social views and everything else. what can a policy of the united states take on to help with those institutions that this grassroots and build into that to help the problem? to the original order. >> i do not know about the hospital. i have heard one of the sanction militias has stepped in, or perhaps the national army. but i do not know. the national army training, and this is an issue that is dear to my heart. i served in libya before the revolution in 2009 and before it in 2011. the u.s. is actively aware of
the need to get this army back on its feet in such a way that is respect for relations. it is treading very carefully because it does not want a large footprint and because the receiving end, the libyans themselves, there is not the organization within the defense to u.s. start asking for help. the basic functions of a ministry of defense, in which you requisition arms, you set your priorities, that was not there partly as a result of the revolution and because of the way it off the ran his military. it was intentionally dead, all of these functions were gutted. it is baby steps. we are really starting from scratch. i think it priority is going to
be training a new generation of libyan officers, specifically at the field level. as i mentioned, and there is this top heavy, that he real weight of the army is missing and that is where we really need to focus our efforts. i understand there is a lot programs under way to get libyan officers abroad for school. there is programs by some of our partner nations to train libyan police outside of the country. some of them have not gone well. we can talk about that in a little bit. but to echo peter's. they want the shiny pieces of equipment that will help them be the biggest cat around town. they need to have bigger toys so
they are asking for helicopters, humvees, and of course this is the wrong way. you need to address the organization problems before you give them the shiny toys, the equipment. we are taking baby steps. the priority is minimal presence in the country. >> i would absolutely agree. you are talking about building a new institution from scratch. in the case of the army and the interior ministry as well. libya, the police force was not equipped to go after armed groups. it was an administrative function, traffic control, opening murder investigations, that kind of thing. they have had to be dissolved completely. some of them have defected and are doing the same job for the rebels.
i will give the example of on the civilian side, how low you had to start from. the head of the police was unable to, she said we do not have equipment. he was not able to say what he needed and who he add to asking the government to actually start requisition in such equipment. -- requisitioning such equipment. if you cannot go in there will be someone there in charge of budgeting for that kind of stuff. that kind of budgetary, what is the word i'm looking for, delegation does not exist. that is one of the fundamental points. on training, i mentioned earlier
on, the national army is top heavy. that has to be changed. the police training programs in jordan ended when the training center was set on fire. there were a trigger happy civilians but it was a mixed training program as well. the level of discipline and the development of the identity has to be created and developed and there has to be overseen. you mentioned training, there is a sense, you confined by lateral partners -- bilateral partners.
jordan was an option. there are others. plenty of countries could offer their services in that regard. one more point, given everything we discussed, there is a sensitivity of making the army to strong. i know that sounds weird but we're talking about a country where there has been no ministry of defense and no civilian oversight. the chief of staff is doing an excellent job in terms of assessing his authority given the limitations but at the same time, there is no counterweight for that. i throw that in as an afterthought because it is something people are concerned about. >> the issue of ministries, and
that is one of the biggest problems. you have people with no experience in the affairs of what they are signed to do. he is a junior lawyer prosecutor. the same thing whistle the minister of defense. because he -- he became a defense minister. then you have the military. it is filled with bureaucrats who do not like to get anything done so that everything comes from the top, the bottom up. we had a long conversation with ambassador stevens and he was complaining we are offered of these things but the libyans are not taking and they do not know how to incorporate what they are asking for and what we are offering. the question was, what can be
done? you have to develop parallel channels. task forces that co around, i think that is the best way to go right now. >> we will take you to kent state university where president obama is campaigning in ohio. it is just about to get underway. ♪ ♪ [cheers] >> hello, kent state! [cheers] hello, ohio.
well, let's begin by giving brian a big round of applause. [applause] i think he has some talent. he may be going places. he sounded good appear. - up here. i also wanted to acknowledge your outstanding congressman who is here. and your mayor is here. and his wife is here. it is good to see all of you.
thank you. thank you. now, let me say this. unless you live under a rock or you did not pay your cable bill, you probably are aware there is an election going on right now in ohio. i was telling the story about my campaign manager, and he was visiting with a young couple. they had a beautiful son. for years old. there was a picture of me on the wall and they were excited. they said, sammy, who is that? he would say barack obama. what does barack obama do?
he thought about it for a man and then he said, and he approves this message. -- a minute and then he said, he approves this message. [laughter] you can tell there are too many ads running during election time but it is true. i approve this message because -- listen, here in ohio, starting on october 2, six days from now, you get to start voting. you get to have your say. for all the young people who are here, you can register all the way until october 9. time is running short if you're not registered. if you need to know how, go to gottaregister.com. but if you already registered, you can start voting in six
days. it is coming up. this is important because you have a very big choice to make. in fact, those of you who are standing, feel free to sit down because i'm going to talk for a while. i want to to feel comfortable. i'm going to see if i can break it down, what this election is about. [cheers] this is not just a choice between two political parties. this is a choice between two different visions of our future. my opponent, he believes in top down economics. he thinks that if we spend another five trillion dollars on tax cuts that favor the wealthiest americans, jobs and
prosperity will rain down from the sky. everybody will be better off. we will live happily ever after. [boo] - vote.oo - [applause] and the problem was what he is trying to sell is we tried that in the last decade. it did not work then, it will not work now, top down economics does not work. this country does not succeed when the richard gere richard. this country succeeds -- rich get richer. this country succeeds when everybody has that chance to live up to their god-given potential. that is when everybody does better. i do not believe we are going to get very far if we have leaders
to write off half of the nation as victims to do not take responsibility for their own lives. [applause] let me tell you, i have spent a lot of time in ohio. i do not need a lot of victims. i see a lot of hard-working people. i see students who are trying to work their way through college. i see single moms, like my mom, putting in overtime to raise their kids right. i see senior citizens who have been saving their entire lives for retirement. veterans who served this country bravely. soldiers to defend our freedom today. we do not believe that anybody is entitled to success in this country. everybody has to work hard. we do not believe government should not help people who are not helping themselves.
that is not the american way. though we do believe an opportunity. we believe in a country where hard work pays off, where responsibility is rewarded, where everybody gets a fair shot. and everybody plays by the same roles. we believe where no matter who you are or what you look like or where you come from, you can make it if you try. that is what i believe. that is why i am running for a second term as president of the united states of america. [applause] now, i have said this before and i will say it again, the path i am offering is not quick or easy. the truth is, we have problems that have been building up for decades. jobs overseas, paychecks shrinking, even when the cost of everything is going up. for the last four years, we have
been working to start restoring the basic bargain that says if you work hard you can get ahead. but we have more work to do. >> i love you, mr. president. >> i love the back. -- you back. but i want to young people to understand, you should feel confident about our future because our problems can be solved. our challenges can be met. we still have the best workers, the best businesses, the best researchers, the best colleges and universities. so, there is not a country on earth it would not replace is with the nine states. but we have more work to do in the path i am offering -- trade places with the
united states. but we have more work to do and the path i am offering -- let me repeat, practical, specific plan to grow to middle- class, create jobs here in ohio and around the country and a stronger foundation for our economy. i want to see us export more products. i was channeling my opponent for a second. [laughter] [applause] i want to see us export more products and outsource fewer jobs. my opponent, several years ago
said, but detroit -- let detroit go bankrupt. when he said that he was talking about 1 in 8 ohio jobs. businesses in 82 ohio counties that count on the auto industry. we. no. we are going to -- we said no. we are going to bet on american workers and manufacturing. the american auto industry has come roaring back with 250,000 new jobs. so now you have a choice. we can give more tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas. don't boo, vote. or we can reward companies that are opening new plants in ohio,
training new workers here in america, creating new jobs. because we have been working on it, you believe me. we do not just talk the talk. my opponent has been spending a lot of time in ohio lately and he has been talking tough about china. he says he is going to take the fight to them. he is going to go after the cheaters. i have to admit the message he is delivering now is the better than the one he was delivering all those years he was profiting from investing in companies that were shipping jobs to china. when you hear his new found our rage, when you see those ads he is running promising to get tough on china, it is like the fox saying we need to keep the chicken coop more secure.
it is not very credible. that is not where he has been. except during the election season. on the other hand, you can see where we have done. i am making up about thinking about to strengthen the position of american workers, make sure they get a fair shot in the global economy. we brought more trade cases against china in one term than the previous a ministration did in two. inistration did in two. when he said stopping the surge would be bad for our workers, we said we're going to do it anyway. we did not take his advice and we got over 1000 americans back to work. you can look at what i have
done and you connect at what he has done and you will have a sense of who is going to be fighting for american workers and you can look at his plan and you can look at my plant. he wants to keep open these tax loopholes that encourage jobs overseas. i want to make sure we're providing tax breaks for companies in america. i want to help factories and businesses double exports. i want more goods stamped with made in america. i want to create 1 million new manufacturing jobs. that is what is at stake and that is why i am running for a second term of the united states. -- as president of the united states. the second part of the plan is to control more of our own energy. after 30 years of not doing anything, we raised fuel
standards so by the middle of the next decade your cars and trucks will but twice as far on a gallon of gas. -- go twice as fast on a gallon of gas. that will help the environment and the economy. we have doubled the amount of renewable energy we were generating from wind and solar. we have thousands of americans who work building wind turbines and long-lasting battery. today, america is less dependent on foreign oil than in 20 years. think about that. so now you have a choice. governor romney wants to reverse that progress. i have a different view. unlike my opponent, i am not going to let oil companies write
this country's energy plan and am not going to let them collect $4 ilion from our taxpayers. they do not need it. -- four billion dollars from our taxpayers. they do not need it. they're making money every time you go to the pump. let's take that money and invest -- in the wind and solar i wind and solar. let's put construction workers back to work retrofitting our buildings and our homes so they energy.sess we can create hundreds of thousands of new jobs and improve our economy, and we can cut in half our oil imports by 2020. that is the goal i am setting.
that is what we are fighting for. that is why i am running for a second term. i want to make sure everybody in america gets a great education. everybody. education was the gateway of opportunity for me. it is the only reason i am standing here. i was not born to wealth for fame but i got a great education. the same thing for michelle, the same thing for a lot of you. it is the gateway to the middle class. again, we do not talk the talk, we walk the walk. we took on a system that was sending billions of dollars to banks and lenders and we said, why do we need middlemen? we can help keep interest rates low. we can provide more pell grants.
that is what we have been fighting for. again, you have a choice because governor romney wants to roll back all that stuff we did. it is a shame. we can gut education to pay for tax breaks for the wealthy or we can decide that in the united states, no child should have her dreams deferred because of an overcrowded classrooms. no family should have to set aside a college except his letter because they do not have the money. -- acceptance letter because they do not have the money. ohio, i am asking you to help
me recruit 100,000 new math and science teachers. help me give 2 million workers the chance to learn the skills they need at community colleges that will lead directly to a new job. help us work with colleges and universities to cut the cost of tuition. [applause] help us choose that future for americans. number 4, let's reduce the deficit in a way that does not stick it to middle class families. i have already worked republicans to cut one trillion dollars in spending and i'm willing to do more. i have a plan for a trillion deficit-reduction. we cannot cut our way to prosperity. we have to cut our tax code and ask the wealthiest households to
pay higher taxes. to go back to the same rate when bill clinton was president. when we created 23 million new jobs and the biggest surplus and history, and a lot of millionaires to boot. in fairness, my opponent has a plan when it comes to taxes. but as president clinton said, it does not have an arithmetic. -- any arithmetic. they are selling the idea you could spend trillions of dollars on tax breaks for the wealthy. no matter how many times they try to rebuild their campaign, no matter how many times they try to tell you they're going to talk specifics, they do not
do it. the reason is because the amount does not work -- the math does not work. they do not explain how tax cuts are going to be put on the table without raising taxes on now class families. they do not stop there. they want to spend another $2 trillion dollars in military spending the military has not asked for. the reason they do not explain it is because they cannot. as they go around with some board behind them with the numbers saying how it is a moral obligation to reduce the deficit,deficit. just us them to explain how the numbers work, because they do not. they do not have a deficit reduction plan. they have a deficit expansion plan.
governor romney may think it is fair that someone who makes $20 million a year like he does should play a lower rate. do not boo. vote. i do not think that is fair. i do not think it helps the economy grow, so we cut taxes. we want to keep taxes for 97% of americans, and you have a so you may end up trading in that car. what happens when you spend money? that means businesses have more customers. and they hire more workers.
that is what we can do to the economy. that is what we can do today, so i am looking forward to working with republicans to reduce our deficit, but i refuse to us middle-class families to give up their deductions to pay for another millionaire tax cut. [applause] i refuse to ask all the students to pay more for college or to kick children off the headstart program so i can take a tax break we do not need. [applause] we're not going to kick the for an elderly and disabled out of healthcare to pay for a tax cut fed does not help us grow, and i
will not turn -- that does not help us to grow, and i will not turn medicare into a voucher. after a lifetime of labor, no american should have their retirement years spent at the mercy of insurance companies. station retire with dignity and respect. -- they should retire with dignity and respect. they have earned it. we will reform and strengthen medicare by actually reducing costs, not by dumping those costs on to seniors. the same thing with social security. we will take steps to strengthen it, but we will not turn it over to wall street. we have been talking about what happens at home, but that is connected to what happens abroad. in 2008 i said i would end the war in iraq, and i did.
i said we would wind down the war in afghanistan in a responsible way, and we are three good because of the incredible service and sacrifice of our troops, a new tower is rising above the skyline. osama bin laden is dead during good -- is dead, but we still face serious threats in the world. that is why we are going to maintain the strongest military the world has ever known, and when our troops come home and take off their uniforms, we are going to serve them as well as they serve us.
they deserve our honor and respect, and we have to do what we need to do to make sure they have an opportunity in this country. [applause] season on foreign policy, and my opponents have a different view -- even on foreign policy my opponents have a different view. he says it was tragic how i when did it -- how i ended the war in iraq. i am going to use the money to pay down our debt and to put more people back to work, rebuilding roads and bridges and schools and runways, because after a decade of war, it is time to do nation-building right here at home. [applause]
that is a choice we now face. that is what this election comes down to. the other side, they like to tell you, and they are going to spend a lot of money to get these checks for people who can afford to write a $10 million checks, and they are going to tell you is bigger tax cuts and regulations is the only way to go. now they are going to tell you since government cannot do everything it should do almost nothing. their theory is if you cannot afford health care, we hope you do not get sick. there are some companies polluting the air, but that is the price of progress. maybe you cannot afford to go to college. your parents will play a. that is not who we are. now that is not what we are about. government cannot solve every problem, but it is not the source of all our problems
either. we have this kind of politics where we pretend somebody out there is to blame, and that is not how this country works. we believe we are all in this together. we believe america only works where we except with his responsability for ourselves and for each other. that is how we create opportunity. that is how we create a possibility. we understand america is not about what can be done for us but what can be done by us. [applause] we have got proves this works. four years ago i said this is not about me. i said it is about you.
that is what i said, so you are the reason that the mother in cleveland does not have to worry about her child getting health insurance because of a pre- existing condition. you made that happen. the reason that factory worker in toledo is at the building the best cars in the world. you are the reason some students can pay for a college education and go to college on the new gi bill. you are the reasons some young in a growing -- some new immigrant who has been raised here saying the pledge of ag be sent to our flo to some country they do not know. you are the reasons some one will not been kicked out of the
military because who they are or who they love. you are the reason why thousands of people are able to say to the service member's they love so bravely, welcome home. you make that happen. one thing i have learned is you cannot change washington on the inside. you have to change on the outside. you change it with ordinary americans making their voices heard. he wrote the speech. he said the president has admitted defeat and waive the right who -- the white flag. i am going to get it done from the inside, and i am thinking, what kind of inside job is he talking about? is he talking about a top down
agenda of republican powers? is he talking about having oil companies writing insurance or folks who are outsourcing jobs planning our tax code is a, if that is what he is talking about, we do not want it. if he is talking about having politicians control health-care choices women are capable of making themselves > we do not need that. [applause] we do not need that.
i believe in you. i believe in your voice. we have always said change takes more than one term, and one year, one president. it takes more than one party. it does not happen if you write off half the nation before you take office. on election night, 2008, we are in grant park. 47% of the american people did not vote for me. they voted for -- [applause] 47% of the country and not vote for me, but i said, i may not have won your vote, but i hear your voices.
i need your help. i will be your president, to secure your -- your president, too. [applause] i say to the state of ohio, i do not know how many people will be with means this time around, but it does not matter because i am ready to be your president. i am here to represent everybody. i am not fighting to create democratic jobs or republican jobs. i am here to create american jobs i am not fighting red stains or blue states. i am fighting for the united states of america. the value of hard work and personal responsibility.
those are not which values or 1% values or 99% values. they are american values. they belong to all of us. i believe we have got more in common than the pundits tell us. i still believe in you, and if you keep believing in me, i want you to register to vote by october 9, and if you stand with me, and if you are knocking on doors with main and making phone calls with me, we will win this county. give we will win ohio. we will remind the world why the united states of america is the greatest nation on earth. thank you, ohio.
♪ tomorrow will be sunshine ♪ >> president obama had to appearances in ohio today. mitt romney was also in ohio with appearances in toledo. both candidates had to virginia tomorrow. mitt romney holds a rally in springfield, va., and then he heads to washington, d.c., for a fund raiser. >> to foster work and enterprise in the middle east and other developing countries, i will initiate what i call prosperity pacts, working with the private sector. the program will identify barriers to trade and entrepreneurialism and developing nations, and in exchange for removing those barriers and opening for u.s.
trade, they will receive u.s. assistance packages promoted to developing several of liberty, the rule of law, and property rights. >> we believe it is not unique to one culture. it is universal values. even as there will be huge challenges to come with the transition to democracy, ultimately, i am convinced the government by the people and for the people is likely to bring about stability in an individual opportunity that serve as a basis for this world. >> mid romney and president obama meet for their first presidential debate. watch and engage with c-span, including our lives debate preview at 7:00 a.m. eastern, and after the debate, your
reaction and tweets. c-span, c-span 2 and c-span.org. >>julian castro and ted cruz spoke of a forum today. >> the question is is the job creation today better than it was when the president took office. >> the answer is absolutely not. it is unambiguous. let me tell you the most important number for assessing where we are is 1.5. in the three and a half years of president obama g.d.p. has been 1.5%. historical a gdp growth has been 3.3%, so we have had nearly four years of growth of less
than half the historical average. by contrast, 1994 was 17.2%. what does that mean when the economy is growing and small businesses are prospering? they are creating new jobs. it creates opportunity. what we have is small business after small business is facing crushing austerity. they do not know between obamacare and the offshore drilling moratorium. all of these are killing jobs, and what entrepreneurs expressed to me is this sense of great uncertainty, what are federal regulators going to do, and the president keeps threatening to raise taxes, which is causing small businesses to keep capital
on the sideline and not employ it. >> i am not sure the president is promising to raise taxes, but you know what the gdp growth was during the end of the bush administration? >> i do not. >> i did not either. >> compare job growth under president obama and under bush. the 4.6 million private sector jobs that have been created is already more than were created under george sorus. you have a president who basically inherited one of the worst economies this country has ever seen, and what are you going to do with a falling object? that object is going to fall, and you are going to have to take it up, and the rise is going to be a little bit slower than you have seen, and it has already created more jobs than george w. bush, and it is up for
the president to understand. it is not where we wanted to be. this is the time to understand who has a plan for the future, because elections are always about the future. given his record i have more confidence president obama can get that done then governor romney. >> you can see this discussion at 8:00 p.m. eastern. now a look at spending ads from the annenberg policy center. this is 45 minutes. >> i am the editorial communications director of the center for responsive politics, and we are here to talk about the challenges posed to journalists by dark money and their mysterious donors. erica is joining me.
she is an assistant director, director of the media project, which tracks of political ads aired in real time during i will talk a little more about what we are seeing in third- party assetds and how reporters contrite to report on this and what can be done if congress or some of the agency's wanted to make this easier for us, and kathleen wanted to meet with us to talk about their findings,
third-party money and how much is being spent on deceptive ads, so first we will go to america. -- to erica. >> it is a pleasure to be here. i am not going to spend too long talking about how we do what we do, but i am happy to talk in greater detail if you have questions at the end. i hope you are aware, but if you are not aware, they have taken over the project, and with the incomplete capacity of reporting, we will have more to say very soon. the project took over from wisconsin in trying to develop a definitive data base of political advertising but also
to enhance transparency during an election is in real time, and i would be remiss in not telling you who our sponsors are, but just to be clear we want to be open and transparent. we're very grateful for allowing us to do this work in real time. as i am sure most of you know, many of us with enough money can purchase data on advertising. our founders have provided us with enough funds that we can do a lot and provide that information in aggregate form to the public on our website in real time, so to tell you a little bit about what we do, we take all of the frequency data, which has jobs on the market
level on which programs and where they are airing and how much they cost. if we take those, what each of that adds, -- watch each ads. what is the tone? what are the issues hammo? we track politician mentioned so we can track how often obama is mentioned favorably in verses on favorably. we look at a host of additional
characteristics, and because we are also analyzing videos we started to look at musical characteristics and other sorts of appeals. we also have access to the full range of advertising database, so that is the leverage in which we can put into context of this cycle compared to those dating back to 2000. we will have lots more to say. if you are not on our list, i encourage you to get in touch, and you can subscribe through our web site or through our winter feed. we are also attracting youtube new -- tracking youtube adds. we have more in october, so i up.ourage you to sign nin i want to put it into context.
when we look dead 2010, we wanted to a depth of percent of interest groups as a percentage of all ads on the air, how much were involved, and you will see these are senate and house races in a dating back to 2000, but on the house side of 2010 who level of activity was not at historic high rates. you see interest rates were more involved. that has changed dramatically, so what we are seeing in the 2012 race is that increase on the grooved sides. this makes up 30% of abs on the air, -- of ads on the air.
it is important to talk about spending, but one thing i keep reiterating to everybody i talk to it is the discrepancy in terms of the candidate adverse those interest group adds. ads vs. interest group abs. there are 150,004 groups, yet you see a dramatic disparity in the cost of ads. that just shows how much they are spending versus candidates' ads. good we are only comparing haag's outside -- comparing outside ads. you will see a sharp increase in
interest rate activity. you can see on the gop side, almost 52% are coming from outside interest groups. if we just look, there will be much more to say about disclosure, but over half of the interest rates adds are coming from those groups. that gives you a sense of the magnitude. here we are looking slightly after that primary, but this is a list of the top spenders on the republican side. we will have more to say about what they're spending and what they are saying. the other thing we are seeing is the cycle. did everyone likes to believe this is the most negative ever.
we are usually more cautious about that. some of these we have to stay when negativity it is exactly the same. we saw the 2010 was much more negative than anything we have tracked. we are continuing to see an increase in negativity, so you can see pro obama spots, so we distinguish, so if i only mention my opponent that would be an attack ad. if we just look at the attack category, you see on the democratic side, a pro-obama ads went to 46% in this cycle. if you compare romney adds, attack went from 41% to 72%, and
this is also true as it was in 2010 but the interest groups are the most negative players. they are not the most negative, but there are not that many of those on the air. candidates are roughly dividing their time but airing more attack ads than anything else, and if we looked at the comparison, we can contribute to rising negativity solely to interest groups. it is largely due to interest groups. the percentage has actually declined because some interest groups are starting to use more who contrast, but it is also her case that your attack ads have increased from 2008, so it is
not solely due interest groups that we are seeing rising negativity. good now we also look at the extent to which an ad focuses on policy, personal characteristics, or some mix of both, and this is a change from 2010. in 2010 it was interest group ads are more focused on policy than any other player, and these are just attack ads, so to what extent are they personal vs. policy? candidates are more likely to air the personal attack. you will see candidate groups and interest rates are equally likely. this is a change from 2010 when interest groups were far more likely to focus on policies and their attacks. we are also attracting the top
issues for all adds, so this was our most recent rallies. we will have more to say later, but one of the key things we are seeing is much more heavy concentration on the gop side on a few issues, and that is driven by a interest groups. six out of 10 interest group ads focus on jobs and deficits. romney is little less focus on deficits. democrats have a much wider spread of issues they are discussing, so i will leave it there for now. [applause]
>> this is a subset of the money we are seeing going into the elections, and we are seeing much more this time around. we are seeing the group said are increasingly active in politics and increasingly active on the airwaves. one we do is we slice and dice campaign finance and lobbying information in ways that make it more usable and easy to interpret for journalists and the public. we have been trying to get shuttle main regions -- to shadow money, and it is very difficult to get to the donors
and what is going on, but if we do not, we are only getting part of the story and probably not a bigger part. what these groups are supposed to disclose, like other groups, is the amount of money they spend on independent expenditures would say vote for or vote against some candidates, and a election-year communications. those are the ads of run within 30 days of the primary. those are what even these groups have to report to the federal commission, so looking just at that spending, even though everyone talks about those super pacs, so even in 2010, 501c4
groups reported spending a third more on politics than super pacs did, so i know everybody talks about super pacs, but they are less visible and are where much of the action is. these numbers do not include said run outside of that window, which is where it went your your -- where it went. this shows the explosion in ads. we are looking at the cycles, and you can see between 2010 and this cycle, the spending has
tripled. express advocacy has soared because they made it clear these groups do not have to your dance around advocating for or against a candidate. now we see it and spending -- we see ad spending, a dramatically larger percentage comes from groups that do not disclose their donors. those are the shade of lblue you see on top, so these came from nbc, said that includes all kinds of ads, so this is money
actually spent, so the number one spender is crossroads gps. it's been $60 million on issue -- it spent $60 million on issue ads. we have the group were they to disclose and last week did disclose donors. that is another and not disclosing group, and you can go down the list. less than a quarter of those spent by outside groups was spent by those the fully disclose those donors. this is just a screen shot of
the only way we have to get out information about these groups. it is almost impossible, and that is by design. it was envisioned that it would protect new groups from scrutiny. the vast majority of 5 01cs are not involved in politics, and they protect the identity of taxpayers or non-taxpayers, and this is the loophole but is being stretched, exploited, used by these groups. adding to the frustration, the small amount of information that well afterd com, as
the fire -- after the fire. the forms are not doomed for more than a year, and that is the first time they can see the totality. the historical data from a what you want to look at, the most interesting part has been scheduled i, so even though they do not have to disclose who gives gifts to them, they do have to disclose who they give to. almost by chance we found this particular organization, which
seems to be run by somebody with ties to the koch brothers, and we learned it was run by groups that gave a lot of money to the election, such as the american future fund, americans for prosperity, and we found are tracking some of the groups that get the money, you see some of those groups are giving money to other groups. there seems to be a turning going john greater than -- going on. when you buy a bottle of wine and there is a price tag and it is the key and it tears, -- it is sticky and it tears, that is what we feel like. i do not know if we will ever
get the price tag off. the other parts that are interesting are officers and directors, which are listed. the top vendor, they have to is fair top vendors, which can be interesting, but this is not easy. what we have been doing with the information we do find is incorporating it on to our website on a particular organization, services americans for prosperity, and you can see we do say this is not reported anywhere, but we have sounded ourselves by digging through irs filings, but we do show information about who is giving to this group.
it is historical, so it is going to be a year old, and we know we are only getting the tip of the iceberg. next slide. our research has taught us hillary clinton was right when there is a vast right wing conspiracy. there is also a left wing conspiracy. on this side you can see the conservative network, and the smaller network is the liberal networks. this is not a complete picture. this is something we worked on with newsweek, and if you go online and find this graphic, it is interactive, so you can click on any of the talks and see what
groups there are. one thing you notice is a lot of the arrows are going in both directions. these groups get money. this is of a nerve center. you will see pharma at the top, which gives to both sides, which reflects the business philosophy to play it safe, but a lot of these groups are giving to each other and slashing the money around in ways we do not understand, so how could we understand it? what could be done to shed light on this? that is something that would be of to federal regulators or congress. one thing that could be done is to pass a version of the disclose are, a stripped-down version as long as phaeton
retained not to disclose the names of donors to give more than -- as long as it retained not to disclose the names of donors who give more than $10,000. edina of filibuster. the sec and -- it died a filibuster. the sec could say that groups paying to the local ads have to disclose the name of its founders triggered the group could set of segregated accounts to give to and know that their names would be disclosed as opposed to disclosing to the whole organization. the idea is the voters should know who is behind the ads. the money they are giving is huge and effectively acts as a campaign contribution, which would have to be disclosed.
there is not much difference between the way some of these groups are operating and the ways to perhaps our operating -- away super pacs are operating, and there is another option to lower the threshold for political activity permitted. right now there is a 49% rule, the amount of political activity the irs allows groups to engage in before it says you are no longer eligible for tax status, but 49% is not found in a law or regulation. it has been of rule of thumb for the agency common and but the irs -- for the agency, but the irs has not been very active in this area, so this is a problem unsolved.
>> i want to play just the beginning which shows what we see as a problem in how journalism is disclosing third- party money. journalism creates the story that tries to say there is a lot of money here. it runs the ads full screen. it is magnifying the deceptive power of the ads. what is the difference between the story in the background and when you put a multiple matrix out so you put nine or 10 screens of ads up, so can they
make exactly the same point without a magnifying the power of ads? >> they are increasing the impact. the solution? show multiple ads on screen at the same time. they run them 68,000 times, nearly 80% attacking mitt romney. >> an unusually early flurry of negative ads. >> the rest of the video is about visual grammar. what we have seen is broadcast network journalism increasingly adopting this framework for presenting news, and they are doing this in various forms. they are creating fisheye screens to store images, so there has been a journalistic
awareness this is a problem and we are seeing an increase in network news putting this solution in place. we need to worry about full screen and content. these types of stories tend to err in broadcast nightly news. we are seeing a network disclaimer on them so you can see there is a network of putting this up as a way to tell you the ads have appeared somewhere in the market, and what that does is give an advantage to which either side has content. it is more controversial rather them less controversial. there is an imbalance in what you see. sometimes you will see something, but it is not engaged at all, and we are seeing
because they are trying to let you know is out there but have not figured out how to show it without being able to talk about it, but they have not fact check it, a move that magnifies the power against free air time, so we would like to point out the problem so people in cable can think about ways and urged them to fact check before they air the ads. if they are putting that up, we would urge someone to put a correction of as part of the process. this is a problem that began to appear as soon as cable appeared, and they realize they can manipulate cable by putting the material in front of producers. it is creating an imbalance. it is magnifying the power of the sections.
if is paid airing, so that is the point i want to make. this happens in part because the explosion is producing more video content being grabbed by producers for 24-hour cable. we have seen a change in data across time in our tracking of dollars spent on ads containing at least one deception. explain what that means. we count our data as well. we take that data and watch the floating denominator because they are estimating with those dollars are constantly. the numbers sometimes drop for no reason. it means there estimate is high and they have read calibrated, but we have looked at our database, and we looked at fact checking for the major groups because our goal is to alert the station to the existence and
have our log available to the station so they can look at accuracy and increase the likelihood of fact checking, and when we started this process in december, we track back to early june when we issued a report saying 85% of early dollars were spent on an ad containing at 7% of the dollar spent by the largest super pac's's -- there was one labor group that technically had a super pac, those are disclosing groups. in that period, december through june, we said with a rising sense of alarm the been nondisclosure is a more receptive in their use of dollars, which is of course consistent with the idea that the greater the level of anonymity, the greater the likelihood you can get away with
deception. that has been historically true with politics. the most anonymous forms have been the most deceptive. that seems historical consistent. although it is difficult to get disclosure and the donors out there with the other groups, the disclosing groups, at least the groups that are attacking -- tracking that have done a pretty good job. they just do not have any idea. we see a change. the change is twofold. the first is that tracking forward now, we are looking that -- from the end of what we declare as the primary season, april 10, through the beginning of this period we are looking at now, through september 20. april 10 through banks to tender 20. we covered were denominator. -- through september 20. we see 80% of the dollar spent on third-party adds -- 20% of
the dollars are spent on ads with at least one reception. that is a big drop in the level of deception. secondly, we find no difference, no statistically significant difference, between disclosing and not disclosing groups. why is it that we see a drop in the level of deception? why do we see no difference between disclosing and not disclosing groups. this is not based on analysis. this is intuition and eyeballing. consistent with the suggestion, when you see and interest -- increase in contrast, you'll see an increase in accuracy. these groups, through whatever magic process they use to determine how they will advertise, have moved to a different theme that is based largely on opinion and much less on in-your-face confrontational attacks. this -- the we are very disappointed theme that said, he tried, he is just not up to the
job. it is ok to vote in a different way. that is a shift that is tactical. in the process it has dropped the level of deception from the past. as a result, the number of dollars being spent on ads contain at least one deception is lower. my take away is twofold. broadcast is magnified by the power of these ads, the stories about money continue to do multiple screens, that solves the problem. we can show that experimentally. two, when you get the ads, box and down, --, put them on the screen, and put disclaimers up to show that they are at. put as much content as you can. we have the visual grammar online for you to use. third, we see this change. unfortunately, we do not think it is because normative be they have shifted to a different concept of democracy.
tactically, the see a advantage in a different kind of discourse as it tried to persuade many swing voters. and questions? >> we will take questions. michael? >> i am at the center for public integrity. my question is for vivica kathleen. combining this panel with the theme of the day. as you well know, super pac's typically play by different disclosure rules for -- c4's generally do not have to disclose that information. but in the political arena, it gets thrown around a lot. we had obama campaign manager -- and obama campaign manager putting out a video saying a kioch -- koch brothers super
pac have attacked the campaign. during his reddit ama of, but talked about the koc brotherh is super pac. a lot of press coverage has not made a lot of distinction. d think politicians and the press corps should be held to a higher -- and do you think politicians and the press corps should be held to a higher level in that? the fact checking of those terms will be happening, or is this the definition of a word that was coined, just shifting over the debate? >> well, obviously i think it is important to distinguish between the two. in part, if you do not distinguish between the two and make a point of saying, more than half the spending, or however much it is, is coming
from groups that do not have to disclose their donors, then the demand for disclosure is not going to grow. we are not going to be able to get anything out of the policy makers in terms of greater transparency in the system. >> equipment about a different kind of labeling. journalism, as -- a quick point about a different kind of labeling. journalism covering the primaries did something incredibly important. they refused to call these groups by the name they had made up to call themselves. instead, they called the pro- romney, the pro-obama, the pro- gingrich super pac. they talked about and that way. in doing that they increase the accountability of the benefit to canada for the content. they did this in questions in the debate. it was important. it happened in print as well. as of the journalistic community somehow thought -- agreed, and now there is no group that just agrees to these things, that the public would be deceived if he
picked up names such as priorities usa, restore our future, as if they had some meaning, and given legitimacy in the process. that translation, which we continue to see when there is talk about third parties, i think it performs an important journalistic function as we try to at least figure out who benefits from this. >> kendall. -- ken doyle. is there any legal obligation or ethical obligation of the people who are running the ads -- running the tv stations running the ads they are receiving, receiving the money, should they be trying to find out at all who is actually paying to air these ads, or in forming their viewers anything about whether it is known or not known who is actually paying for the ads they are showing?
is there any way to approach it on that basis? the people who are actually receiving the money to air the ads, to take some responsibility for knowing or not knowing who is paying them? >> i think it would be pretty tough to do. i think vivica spoke at length about the difficulty of finding this information. i think requiring stations to do that would be -- >> it could refuse to air the ads. >> the stations are supposed to certify to themselves at least the integrity of the person who is bringing the product adds to them. but the language in that ruling was about advertising, not specifically about product advertising. it is unclear whether or not it affects third-party assets as a result. there has not incur -- a clear
rule making. i hope the fcc will engage in a clear rule making. in the history of regulation, you will find it is in our faq on the stand by your ad project, which is on flackcheck.org. there is a lack of clarity -- the case was about product, the ruling did not specify product -- whether they are supposed to have a positive obligation to check the accuracy of the ads. there was also ambiguity because they were handed down using the advertising of at -- language of advertising, not necessarily product advertising. the stations to be accountable at a point in which to file for a renewal of lessons. one of the -- license. one of the question is going forward, stations, if they know those things cannot apply, lawyers were filing a cease and desist notices and saying you have to add these check the
accuracy and reliability. where is the fcc on this? where are they to be? >> c-span.owhat about, if you dt tell me, i will not run? >> stations have the absolute right to reject third-party at. they do not have to give a reason. they have the right to choose to insist on accuracy. if they do their ads that are libelous or defamatory, they are subject to legal suits if an agreed candidate has standing to come against them. >> other questions? >> university of maryland. this is addressing your hypothesis about why deception was last before april 10 -- why deception was more before april
10 and increased -- decrease. before april 10, you had the primaries. had you thought of the possibility that in primary, because there are so many candidates, deception is easier to accomplish? there is much less knowledge of these people, and therefore statements about them are less researched, more unknown, and now you have it narrowed down to two candidates, one of whom is very well-known, the other of whom is much better known than the other primary candidates. multiple candidates, the lower information level, would perhaps encourage more deception? >> it is certainly possible. the only way to know would find a way to -- to find a way to get inside the heads of people who created them. what we can see from our survey is there still is a relatively high level of route -- public
ignorance about a lot of things. we have the ignorance hypothesis that says that would elicit a higher levels of deception. this seems to be enough ground to play on right now for the attackers, even in a 2-candidate race. i do not know. it is certainly interesting. >> other questions? >> the league of women voters. i am wondering if there is data, as we look at citizens trying to encourage the media to do the right thing, do you have data that shows that the public is also hungry for sunshine and openness and spotlighting on money behind the ads? i know people are becoming aware there is a giant washer of money descending over them, but i would just be curious about that. maybe it is not something you have your. >> we do not.
we would encourage somebody to ask those questions. >> i would comment that the initial surveys that came out right after the citizens united decisions were overwhelmingly negative. so certainly there is strong evidence to suggest the public was unhappy with that. the media coverage of all of the spending may be a point. good question. there should be more data. >> others? if there are no more questions, let me thank all the people who have participated today. let me thank you for joining us. i want to thank our partners, the center for responsive politics, our founders, the annenberg foundation, and encourage you to go to flackcheck.org andy now you are stations to insist on the accuracy of third-party adds, and to fact check those marketed
on air and on line. thank you for joining us. have a good afternoon. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> tomorrow morning's washington journal," the head of the aerospace industry association, and the automatic spending cuts scheduled to take effect in january, and how they will effect defense contractors. then, steve and farnsworth, a political science professor at mary washington university, on camp in 2012 and virginia's role as a swing state. also anthony sanders of george mason university on housing prices, which hit a seven-year high in july. washington journal," live with the day's headlines and your phone calls, every morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> later in the day, the
federalist society, with a preview of the cases coming before the supreme court, which opens its new term next monday. that is live at 12:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. at 4:15, libya's president addresses the u.n. general assembly in new york. we also hear from the leaders of israel, iraq, and the palestinian authority. a senate debate between republican senator dean heller and his democratic challenger. live on c-span, and also online at c-span.org. >> september 11, 2001, changed my life forever. it changed america's life. i will go through a park and presentation that will outline the account, the historical account of the attack as it happened, as things transpire that day. a lot of things happened very quickly. i will do my best not to ramble on and -- or go to fast.
i would ask you to sit back, clear your mind, put yourself in that room, and get a real sense of what it was like to be at the top of the food chain, the national command authority, as a nation of 300 million americans was attacked by 19 al qaeda terrace. >> more from retired lieutenant colonel robert darling. this weekend, on american history tv, sunday at 7:00 p.m. eastern and pacific -- 7:30 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span 3. >> president obama and mitt romney gave foreign-policy speeches yesterday in new york. on this morning's washington journal, " we talk about foreign policy in the presidential race with a former undersecretary of state. morning, nicholas burns, former undersecretary of state from 2005 to 2008 for the george w. bush administration, currently teaching as a professor of
diplomacy and international politics at harvard. thank you for joining us. you heard the speeches from new york and the play on these doing foreign policy points, what is your take away as far as each candidate and what they had to say? guest: it is very interesting the foreign policy has made a comeback in this campaign. it is a good thing for the americans who live in this world. i thought that the president gave a very soft speech yesterday. covering a lot of ground, focusing on the middle east and these tragic events that took place two weeks ago, the assassination of the ambassador and his diplomatic colleagues in libya. president made two important points, saying that americans obviously want to show great religious tolerance for the
views of others and he disassociated the united states from that hateful video made in california. but he also said, and this was his main point that he was passionate about, that americans have an abiding belief in freedom of speech and we have to protect those rights and if the government of bridges free speech by an oppressive minorities, it makes the world a more dangerous place. i thought the president made a compelling case there. his message for iran was that while he wanted to negotiate differences through diplomacy if possible, time is not unlimited. i thought that was a good morning to the iranian government, which has been obstreperous and difficult to deal with. host: how about mitt romney? can you assess from which you have heard, seen, and written over the months? anything close to where you might call a mitt romney doctrine?
how would you encapsulate it? guest:obviously governor romney is a smart and successful person. he has been out talking about foreign policy, though i get the sense that is not the issue he wants to emphasize in this campaign. he obviously wanted to be about our unemployment rate. it is an unusual position for a republican to be in, running against a democrat with a strong position on national security. i have worked for republicans and democrats in various administrations. i am not a political person, but it seems to me the republicans always try to run to the right of the democrats, but in this election you have president obama, who has taken us out of iraq, who has waged a very tough war against al qaeda and gone after that leadership, as well as osama bin laden, who has taken out the terrorists in yemen.
president obama, i think because of his actions and his impressive record, he has boosted american credibility in other parts of the world. governor romney has been trying to assert that president obama is not strong enough on foreign policy, that he has not been as tough as he should be with china. i am not sure if that is getting through and i wonder if governor romney might be better revised in this campaign to articulate in a much more detailed way just how he would change american foreign and national security policy on the big issues. how do we deal with russia, china, get out of afghanistan? so, as you know, the debates start next week and it looks like foreign policy will be a big part of the debate and i think it is healthy that we discussed these issues. host: we want your comments
from the viewers out there. nicholas burns spent 27 years in the u.s. foreign service, for an undersecretary for political affairs. we would get your calls in a moment, numbers are on the bottom of the screen. we will read twitter messages as well. we want to talk about iran and begin with a short piece from the president yesterday from the u.n.. [video clip] we respect the right of nations to access peaceful nuclear power, but one of the points of the united nations is to make sure that power is harness for peace. make no mistake, a nuclear-armed iran is not a challenge that can be contained. it would threaten the safety of israel, as well as the safety of the global economy. it risks triggering a nuclear
arms race in the region. that is why a coalition of countries is holding the iranian government accountable. that is why the united states will do what we must to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. host: any messages that you heard the president? postures'? speak to recent history. go ahead. guest: i thought that it was an interesting reference that he made yesterday. i thought that he was speaking directly to the iranian government and, beyond them, to the iranian people, to get this message across the united states has a lot of international backing. and that there is a big, big push right now to see if we and other countries can sit down with iran, negotiate our differences, prevent them from becoming a nuclear weapons power, and getting the atomic energy commission to watch to
make sure they do not go beyond what they should be doing in terms of enrichment. the president has put the toughest sanctions ever in place against iran and he has reserved the right as absolutely necessary at the end of the day for the united states to use force, but he has put that off to focus on diplomacy. what is interesting about this is i work for george w. bush and condoleezza rice on this issue for years. there is a remarkable similarity between these policies and i get this sense in my discussion with senators and congressmen and women on capitol hill that there is a basic bipartisan support for this policy that the last two american presidents have undertaken. we do not want to go to war right now, we do not want to open up the possibility of a third land war.
we want to focus on diplomacy in that sense. we also want to be tough, protecting israel and our friends in the arab world. to me, it is a sensible policy and i think we ought to give him the time, or governor romney if he is elected, the time to negotiate with the iranians. we have not had a sustained, substantive conversation with the iranian government since the jury carter administration. so, it really is in our interest to talk to them. not because we like that government, we do not, but we want to resolve this peacefully and not through warfare. host: role with, new york, welcome to the program. you are on with nicholas burns up in boston. caller: new york city was on high alert with active police officers in the embassies and synagogues. obama did nothing.
i think that if bush was there there would have been 50 marines on rooftops with sniper rifles. i heard from a friend of mine, fbi agent, the media does not think so. who is supposed to stand up for these guys? you know what i am staying? host: how do you think the administration handled libya? guest: let me just say, i have worked for both republican and democratic administrations. i really think that it is unfair to level such a criticism of president obama. he has been a very strong leader on protecting this country, as president bush was. both presidents have put the security of the american people as job number one, as they should.
they have both been strong in that area, it is unfair. libya was a tragic event. ambassador stephens died two weeks ago today. the responsibility for guarding our embassies in conflict overseas, there is not an american military protecting our embassies. it is the host country that provides perimeter security around different establishments. so, let us down? in cairo? the egyptian government did not have enough security to run the embassy, which is why the crowd went over the wall. it was the libyans who led us down in been gauzy, when -- benghazi, when ambassador stevens was killed. it is not appropriate to somehow blame the state department or the white house for this.
obviously, we have to do everything we can to protect our people. president obama got on the phone with the president of egypt and basically said -- you have got to do a better job -- this is my paraphrasing based on what i have read -- but basically, you have got to do a better job. this is a time for americans to band together. we are depending on those diplomats to represent us. host: eric, on the line for democrats. hello. caller: thank you for taking my call. first of all, the gop always says that there is a liberal media, but that cannot be further from the truth, because all media is corporate owned. when you are a tv person, all you are doing is what your boss told you to do. corporations are owned by rich people who, for the most part, are going to be republican, meeting that all media is right wing, or center-right.
with that said, i want to talk about iran. mitt romney, he does not have any reason to run for president. -- i want to talk about iran. mitt romney does not have any reason to run for president. he is not trying to help the people, especially the poor. so why is he running? he is running for rich people. he doesn't have any backbone. he goes whichever way the wind blows. he will go to war with iran. that is very scary. guest: thank you for your question. i have developed a healthy respect for the media. i was a spokesman for warren
christopher and madeleine albright. the media plays an indispensable role in our society. they ask the tough questions that need to be asked. they are very independent people. the journalists are independent and doing their job. we are lucky to have them. governor romney has been a very successful person and whenever he has done. i think he was a good governor of massachusetts. i lived in massachusetts. he has had a tough presidential campaign. foreign policy -- he doesn't
have traction. he has not been able to articulate a compelling view about how he would leave this country in a different direction than president obama. maybe he can begin to do that. he gave a good speech yesterday on our development policies. he needs to do more of that in the debates. president obama and governor romney have different views about where to take this country internationally. host: where you expecting from the speech by the iranian leader today? guest: mahmoud ahmadinejad is a fool. he is an israel hater.
he denies the holocaust. he lost most of his power. he is not the most significant leader in iran. i would expect a lot of lies about the united states. iran has very low support. they have support from hezbollah and the syrian government. most countries want nothing to do with the iranians. they have been violating their commitments on their nuclear enrichment programs. it is a program on the defensive. president obama has been doing a good job of pushing the
iranians into a corner and we should continue that policy matter who wins the election and prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon. host: susan from new york. caller: good morning. their comments are very great. i have two questions, one regarding libya. one is regarding libya. the al qaeda attacks on the guy that made the film in california? regarding the foreign policy issue, do you think that president obama has more of a
high-tech idea of our military in the future rather than the boots on the ground type of military we have seen in the past where we put our boys in harm's way? guest: those are good questions. it is unclear what happens in libya. we know there was a demonstration at the consulate in benghazi. ambassador stevens was there for the day. there may have been an organized terrorist attack. the state department is investigating on this. i like to say i was a member of the american foreign service for many years.
this was a terribly tragic day for the american foreign service. we lost four outstanding foreign servants. the state department has not lost some into a terrorist attacks since 1979. this is a dangerous business in the most dangerous parts of the world. boy, our men and women deserve our support and our thanks serving our country overseas. on the second question, pertaining to governor romney, he just needs to present a more compelling vision of what he wants to do with foreign policy for the united states. he has talked a lot about
military modernization and about maintaining the strength of our air force. i think he is right about that. president obama has a modern view of how it wants to use the military. he decided he would take us out of iraq and he would begin to draw down in afghanistan. he said most of the combat troops would be out in 2014. we have fought two major land wars simultaneously. i think president obama wants to avoid land wars if we can in the future and use the comparative advantage that we have and that is our air power and sea power. you see him do that in
afghanistan and yemen and somalia and it has been effective. i think the strategy is a good one. host: we have about 20 minutes left with our guest. republican named rick. caller: the justification for taking out anwar al-awlaki. can you justify taking out his 16-year-old son at a dinner party with his friends? guest: that is a tough question. i'm not a lawyer. anwar al-awlaki was an american citizen but inside it terrorism against every other american. he was part of a terrorist group that would inflict a
terrorist attacks on our country. i think our government had a right to go after him. as to his son, i don't have any special knowledge about what happened in the attack. terrorists put themselves on the line and we have an obligation to go after them and i do think president obama has been right to wage a tough campaign against al qaeda. al qaeda it is an enemy of the united states. host: we had this headline in "the washington times." "total support for the rebels." what is your take?
guest: at least 25,000 people have died in syria. president obama said the right thing yesterday. the dictator of syria has to go. there has to be in the government. the syrian government is just strong enough to stay in power. they seem to be evenly matched. there doesn't seem to be a clear winner in this war. russia and china are blocking every attempt by the u.n. security council to help the refugees or the rebel alliance or to give a straight message to the dictator in syria.
so they are no help. president obama does not want to intervene with troops because it would take too many american troops. i think he is made the right decision not to put american troops in. we now have to consider arm the rebels. these poor people have lost their home and kids cannot go to school. it is a terrible story. i think the united states has to reconsider the policy of not arming the rebels. host: one viewer wants to hear from you via twitter. guest: they say hindsight is 20/20.
i think president bush was a fine person and did a lot of good things for this country. i think the iraq war was a mistake. there weren't weapons of mass destruction at the time. young men and women gave their lives for that effort. it cost us over $1 trillion and harmed the basic credibility of this country. if we could go back to 2003, i would not recommend that we invade in iraq. it was a war of choice. the decision to go when afghanistan was a war of necessity. we had to go after osama bin laden.
host: samuel, good morning from virginia. caller: good morning. you hear me well? host: yes. caller: justifiable credit to our president. hello, mr. burns. guest: good morning. caller: i was impressed by the president's speech. i think he gave a very excellent speech about freedom, freedom for the people in the middle east. they give him a standing ovation -- they were appreciative of what he was saying. people who hate the president of the united states should ask
who they are supportive of or what they are supportive of. they claim to be patriotic people but they despised our president. i did nothing that has anything to do with his policy but that he is a black president and the evidence proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt. guest: thank you for your comments. i think the president is a dignified, effective leader for the united states. i think his foreign policy has been strong, impressive, and very impressive in protecting the american people. he has been able to reach out to the muslim world. he has tried to repair some of these divisions.
i travel a lot and go to india and europe and i can tell you people respect him overseas and like him. he presents a positive image for our country. i admire him and think he is coming fine job for our country. host: one more point about iran. another story in "the washington times" about how the west may welcome back someone named rafsanjani. guest: he is the former president of iran. he is more moderate than someone like ahmadinejad. this leadership of iran -- they have the hateful policy toward
the state of israel and have been developing this nuclear weapons program. i'm not sure if it will make a big difference. the real power in that country is the supreme leader. i mention his name before. he is the successor to the ayatollah khomeini, who died several years ago. he has a distorted view of the united states. it appears he is trying to block our efforts that might resolve this nuclear issue peacefully. am not sure there will make crucial difference because power does resist with this supreme leader. we have a real problem with iran. they are trying to create a nuclear weapon. they have been very unhelpful in
afghanistan and iraq. i would think that i ran would be the number one national security problem and i hope we can resolve it peacefully. we have to be tough-minded. host: david joining us from boston. caller: how does the u.s. expect cooperation from china and russia on syria? every time there is a vote in the u.n., the u.s. videos that u.n. vote. -- vetoes that u.n. vote. i like to know -- the palestinians -- or was it a try to gain recently from the u.n.
and it was vetoed by the u.s. and israel? ahmadinejad -- i heard he was misquoted on that statement or a wanted to wipe israel off the map. he wanted to say zionism was going to fall by its own volition. host: you can take any or all of them. guest: i've paid close attention to what ahmadinejad said. he said many times that israel should be wiped off the face of the world. they have it out for israel. they want to see israel disappear. it is the obligation of the united states to protect israel.
china and russia don't care about the palestinians. spite our differences, the united states has been a good friend to the palestinians and we want to see a peace agreement. there should be an independent state as well as a secure state for israel. i think it is dangerous to say the chinese and russians care very much because they run cynical foreign policy. host: there is a headline "the new york times." they have a refurbished soviet carrier that will be used for training and testing for now.
guest: there is a major chinese military buildup under way and it will continue for years and decades to come. we have a balancing act with china. china is the leading creditor of the united states. we have a highly integrated relationship with china. we do not want to go to war with china. we do not want to see china become a dominant power in east asia. the united states has been the guardian of security in east asia. into putting marines northern australia and reinforcing our alliances with japan and south korea.
i think that is the proper strategy. i do think this will be the number-one issue in american foreign policy for the next decade or more and should be a big issue in the debates. i think president obama and governor romney have similar views. host: one viewer has a broad question via twitter. what do you think? guest: i'm not sure if he is referring to regime change in iraq or iran. it is difficult for the united states to plan to topple the regime of another country.
we did so successfully and our military was brilliant into iraq and take dislodged saddam hussein. we were there for eight years and everybody knows the sad story of what happened. the united states needs to be the leader in the world but we need to know the value of restraint. we cannot solve everybody's problems. we cannot fight our way through every problem. we do need to return to diplomacy backed by force. normally the united states has put the diplomats out front and tries to resolve our differences peacefully and when our backs are to the wall do we use the military.
one mistake we might have made after 9/11 is that we overuse the military. we thought there was a military answer to every problem. host: dave is calling from illinois it on the republican line. caller: good morning. i disagree with you on saying obama is such a great foreign policy leader. after the u.n. speech, i would think with israel on the verge of war with iran that he would have met with the israel prime minister or some of our other allies to reassure them that we're behind them. instead he is going on 'the view."
he spent $7,000 running an ad in pakistan. he said nothing about the art display with the crucifix and urine. he goes around apologizing for the u.s. and does not defend things that are happening here. host: nicholas burns. guest: thank you for your question. i do not see president obama apologizing for very much. think this charge that he apologizes excessively is wrong. i listened to his speech yesterday. he did not apologize for that video. that is a vile and hateful video.
america was built on religious tolerance. we believe that muslims should be freed as christians and others should be free to practice their religions. that is all the president is saying. i think it is important that the united states and israel be together here publicly. there is a separation between the u.s. and israeli governments which is not healthy. you want to have a united front publicly. you do not want to disagree in front of our adversaries. we'll have an honest disagreement with the israeli
government. prime minister netanyahu has intervened in our political campaign by suggesting the united states should draw military force if iran does x, y, or z. that doesn't make sense to me. we should want our president to be able to use his own judgment at the time to make this decision. i agree with president obama. try to restrain israel and preventing israel from attacking is the right decision. we should support israel. again, i think the president is showing a lot of wisdom here. host: this is a photo from "the new york times."
"train allies in afghanistan, with their guard fully up." what do you make of what some are calling the diminishing role of nato in afghanistan? guest: i think we have to wind this war down. we have been there for 11 years. there is no conventional victory for us. we should honor our troops for their service. we cannot defeat the taliban. the only way out is to do what president obama and hillary
clinton are trying to do and that is to promote negotiations between the afghan government and the taliban, but drawdown american forces. that is the only way out for the united states. we're training hundreds of thousands of afghan soldiers and some have been turning their guns on the american allies and killing our soldiers. our military has put restrictions on the type of training we do to inhabit these attacks. the afghan government is very weak. you have to wonder -- the afghan government has to do a better job of vetting the people that go into military.
host: one last call for our guest. caller: hi. i wanted to talk about the caller who talks about mitt romney running for president on his own agenda. i think he is not the right person. i cannot see him running our country and bring us into war. he alludes to some war in iran. he has five healthy sons that have not served in the military. he is out there for his own agenda. vice-president biden has one son that is patriotic to our country. host: how about a final thought
from you in a broad sense about campaign 2012 that foreign policy would play. guest: governor romney is a patriotic american and wants to contribute. i think he is having a problem in the campaign. foreign policy is becoming a bigger issue because of these terrible events in the middle east. both candidates want to sanction china because of the threat of war. i think president obama has the advantage going into the debate. the president's record is very solid. mitt romney has to develop some well considered ideas -- here's what i would do on the big issues.
how we can stop iran from becoming a nuclear weapons power. how do we bring peace to the palestinians? that is a debate we should have. it should not be partisan. i am looking for to the debates. host: nicholas burns, former u.s. ambassador and now teaching at the harvard. thank you for joining us this morning. guest: thank you very much. >> tomorrow morning's washington journal, the head of the aerospace association on the aerospace association on the automatic spendi